The Shema in Johnʼs Gospel
Mohr Siebeck
Lori Baron, born 1959; 2005–15 Greek language instructor and teaching assistant at Duke Divinity School; 2015 PhD; since 2016 Assistant Professor of New Testament and Coordinator of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Theological Studies, St. Louis University.
ISBN 978-3-16-154815-4 / eISBN 978-3-16-161939-7
DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-161939-7
ISSN 0340-9570 / eISSN 2568-7484
(Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe)
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available at http://dnb.dnb.de.
© 2022 Mohr Siebeck Tübingen. www.mohrsiebeck.com
This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was printed on non-aging paper by Laupp & Göbel in Gomaringen and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren.
Printed in Germany.
Acknowledgements
This revised dissertation, which was submitted to the Graduate Program of Religion at Duke University in 2015, represents the culmination of a long academic, theological, and personal journey. What began as a personal interest in the relationship between Jesus and Judaism led me from the west coast to the east coast, where I had the opportunity to study with internationally renowned scholars at Duke University and forge new and fast friendships.
I am especially grateful to Joel Marcus, who was my primary adviser and mentor throughout my doctoral program. During my first semester at Duke, Joel’s class on John’s Gospel sparked my fascination with the rocky relationship between John and Judaism. Joel’s ability to spot weaknesses in an argument has taught me how to think more carefully. His capacity to discern grammatical sins of omission and commission and his love of Strunk & White have taught me how to be a better writer. His broad knowledge of primary and secondary literature has taught me how to be a better reader. His constant encouragement and belief in me, along with his careful attention to my work, has taught me, by example, how to be a better person. I am proud to say that my teaching, writing, and research will always bear his influence.
To the other members of my dissertation committee, whose comments on my dissertation greatly improved my work, I owe thanks. Richard Hays’s class on the use of the Old Testament in the New, along with his books and articles on the topic, has had a substantial impact on this project. Mark Goodacre’s work on the Synoptic gospels has helped me to think and rethink Synoptic relationships and to reflect on the nature of the gospels as scripture. Laura Lieber’s expertise in Judaism, liturgy, and the Hebrew Bible, has been invaluable. I am grateful to each of them for their wise counsel, generosity, and encouragement.
I am thankful for the opportunities I have had to present some of my thoughts on the Shema in John in the Johannine Literature section of the Society of Biblical Literature. Special thanks to Paul Anderson and Alicia Myers for their interest in my work. Other scholars of John’s Gospel who have encouraged me along the way include Andrew Byers, James McGrath, and Christopher Skinner. I was fortunate during my time at Duke to converse with two of the great Johannine scholars of the 20th century, D. Moody Smith and J. Louis Martyn. Their vast contributions to biblical scholarship were exceeded only by their generosity and kindness to those entering the field. May their memory be for a blessing.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Jörg Frey for accepting my dissertation for publication in the WUNT II series and for the encouragement of Tobias Nicklas. Their suggestions have helped transform my dissertation into a more substantial monograph. Among the excellent staff at Mohr Siebeck, I am especially thankful to Elena Müller, Tobias Stäbler, and Rebekka Zech for their assistance throughout the editorial process.
St. Louis University, where I have spent the last three years teaching, has graciously provided the assistance needed to help me format this monograph for publication. Tim and Amy McNutt have worked alongside me the past two years to prepare my manuscript to go to print. I am grateful for their help and for the meals over which we discussed the progress of the book and got to know each other.
Family and friends deserve credit for supporting me throughout my doctoral program, dissertation writing, and the publication process. Without their patience and encouragement, I could not have persevered in my work. Special thanks to my parents, Jan and Richard Baron, who have always believed in me and been proud of me, even when the direction of my studies may have challenged their own beliefs. Thanks to Hans Arneson, my study companion for comprehensive exams; and to my colleagues Matthew Thiessen, Jill HicksKeeton, David Moffitt, Colin Miller, Isaac Morales, Brad Trick, Tim Wardle, Chad Spigel, Love Sechrest, Zack Phillips, Susan Miller, Bart Scott, Susanna Drake, Kristi Upson-Saia, Christine and Tim Luckritz Marquis, and Wendy Kim. And to friends outside the academy who enriched my life along the way: Maria Linck, Sandee Washington, Leslie Land, Darby Odom, Jill McArdle, Lorna Collingridge, and Carol Thomson; I will always be grateful to you for supporting me on this journey.
December 1, 2019
Lori Baron
Chapter
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5 The
4.6
Chapter
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
Chapter
Chapter
7.3
7.4
Chapter
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1
Introduction
The Shema is the centerpiece of Jewish prayer, a call to listen to and obey God alone, a summons to loyalty and service that demands the fullest response of the whole person. Abraham Joshua Heschel has written:
Nothing in Jewish life is more hallowed than the saying of the Shema: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One.” All over the world “the people acclaim His Oneness evening and morning, twice every day, and with tender affection recite the Shema”... The voice that calls: “Hear, He is One,” is recalled, revived. It is the climax of devotion at the close of the Day of Atonement. It is the last word to come from the lips of the dying Jew and from the lips of those who are present at that moment.1
The proclamation of the divine unity along with the injunction to love God with all one’s heart, soul, and strength (Deut 6:4–5), captures the essence of what it means to be Jewish, to be called into a unique covenant with the one God, and as one people, to take seriously the responsibilities of that relationship.
Although the biblical context does not deny the existence of other gods, but rather affirms Israel’s loyalty to her God alone, in subsequent tradition the Shema would be construed in new ways: as the watchword of monotheism, as a call to martyrdom, and as “the acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven”: the recognition of God’s kingship.2 Throughout its history, the Shema has evolved and taken on new meanings as Jews have found themselves in new political and social settings, living among different nations and their gods. In the face of the challenges posed by these settings, the Shema did not only take on new theological nuances, but also acquired polemical and social functions.3 The Shema was used to define and sharpen Jewish identities in social settings that challenged God’s oneness and the uniqueness of Israel’s relationship with God. One such threat, certainly the most enduring one, came from Christianity.
The Shema is a significant text not only in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, but also in the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, and Luke cite the Shema as the epitome of Jesus’s teaching, the Great Commandment,
1 Abraham Joshua Heschel, Between God and Man: An Interpretation of Judaism (New York: The Free Press, 1959), 104.
2 E.g., m. Ber. 2:2, 5.
3 Jacob Mann, “Changes in the Divine Service of the Synagogue Due to Religious Persecutions,” HUCA 4 (1927): 245–261. All abbreviations follow The SBL Handbook of Style (2nd ed.; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014).
Chapter 1: Introduction and Paul and other writers also allude to it.4 The absence of the Great Commandment in John is not surprising, as the Fourth Gospel tends to go its own way in its distinctive narrative of Jesus’ s life, ministry, death, and resurrection. And yet, the present study will argue that the Shema is more central to the Christology and historical setting of John’s Gospel than to any other New Testament writing, that John makes more of the Shema than do the Synoptic authors who cite it.
In a 1947 study, C. K. Barrett makes the intriguing suggestion that John takes the theme of God’s oneness, along with the command to love God and neighbor, and develops them into the movement at the very heart of the Fourth Gospel, weaving these themes throughout his narrative.5 Joel Marcus takes note of Barrett’s article and observes that in both Mark and John, tensions between Jesus and Jewish authorities seem to reflect late first-century conflicts in which Christians are accused of blasphemy for their claims about Jesus.6 The present study builds upon the observations of both Marcus and Barrett in an effort to demonstrate that (1) themes of the Shema are presented in a novel way in John’s Gospel, and (2) these Johannine innovations have resulted from a bitter conflict between believers in Jesus and non-Christian Jews in the late first century, a conflict over Jesus’s identity that is expressed through a novel interpretation of one of the most sacred Jewish texts. John’s use of the Shema provides a lens through which the reader is able to witness part of the painful process of self-definition and separation of two groups: the Johannine community and the larger community of Jews to which its members once belonged. This study identifies prominent themes found in the Shema (Deut 6:4–9) and tracks them in John’s Gospel. Prior to studying John, Chapter 2 discusses the Shema in its Deuteronomic context and identifies its key motifs of hearing, oneness, love for God, and life. It also follows these themes throughout Deuteronomy and identifies secondary motifs that often accompany them, e.g., keeping the commandments, blessings and curses, and witness to the nations. These themes frequently cluster together as features of the Deuteronomic covenant.
Chapter 3 lays out a methodology by which allusions to the Shema are identified and observes where these allusions crop up in the Hebrew Bible outside of Deuteronomy. Because the Shema is at the heart of the covenant, allusions to it tend to be found in passages that depict a new or renewed covenant, and in descriptions of faithful leaders who keep the commandments and encourage Israel to keep them diligently. In Wisdom literature, both canonical and non-
4 Matt 22:34–40; Mark 12:28–34; Luke 10:25–37.
5 C. K. Barrett, “The Old Testament in the Fourth Gospel,” JTS 48 (1947): 155–169.
6 Joel Marcus, “Authority to Forgive Sins upon the Earth: The Shema in the Gospel of Mark,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel (LNTS 104; ed. Craig A. Evans and William Richard Stegner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 199; cf. Marcus, “Idolatry in the New Testament,” Int 60 (2006): 152–164.
canonical, the sages draw upon the Shema to show that wisdom is found in loving God and keeping God’s commandments. The Shema also plays a key role in prophetic oracles of eschatological restoration, where the one God promises to re-gather Israel in the land and create one, unified people.
Chapter 4 explores the use of the Shema in Second Temple literature. Along with the Hebrew prophets, some writers blame the exile on Israel’s disobedience and call for a return to the covenant using the language and motifs of the Shema. Some describe the ritual practices of placing words of the law upon their hands and foreheads and upon their doorposts and gates in accordance with Deut 6:6–9. The sectarian writings at Qumran describe an exclusive covenant with God in terms of the Shema and use its language to depict personal piety. Other writers, in conversation w ith the Greco-Roman culture of diaspora Jewish communities, use the Shema to bridge the gap between Jewish thought and Greek philosophy.
The Shema in the New Testament is the topic of Chapter 5. The Synoptic gospels each contain a version of the Great Commandment, along with other echoes of the Shema. Paul reworks the Shema with a remarkable Christological twist in 1 Cor 8:4–6. His case for the unity of Jew and gentile in Christ, apart from the law, has the Shema as its cornerstone. Like the oracles of restoration in the Hebrew Bible, Paul draws upon an eschatological interpretation of the Shema to demonstrate that the unity of God and Christ must result in a unity among believers.
In Chapter 6, the themes of the Shema are traced in John’s Gospel, in scenes that involve conflict between Jesus and Jewish authorities, where Jesus is charged with making himself equal to God (John 5, 8, and 10). Jesus argues for his unity with the Father in terms of the Shema. Intertextual echoes of prophecies of eschatological restoration demonstrate that for John, Jesus is the messianic ruler of the new age and his disciples are the unified people of God. John’s rhetoric is considered in relation to the social trauma caused by a rift between Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah and those who did not.
Chapter 7 outlines John’s use of the Shema in the Farewell Discourse. In this material, Jesus is portrayed in the same terms as YHWH in Deuteronomy: Jesus chooses a people, loves them, gives commandments, and is the source of life. Resonances with prophecies of eschatological restoration are strong in John 17, where the author emphasizes unity between Father, Son, and disciples as a witness to the world. Finally, the new commandment of John 13:34 is discussed as a reinterpretation of the Shema and the law of Moses for the eschatological age.
Chapter 8 examines the Johannine crucifixion scene and the Prologue in light of the Shema. Because the reading proposed here involves a rhetorical strategy that is highly inflammatory and potentially dangerous in terms of its treatment of “the Jews,” it will be necessary to broach the topic of anti-Judaism
Chapter 1: Introduction in John. Various solutions to John’s an ti-Jewish passages are surveyed, including the social and historical context, rhetorical features of ancient polemic, and the use of prophetic critique in intra-Jewish conflict. Ultimately, the text’s high Christology leads to a theological anti-Judaism that denies the validity of Judaism apart from Christ. The goal in this section is to uphold the integrity of the text while also advocating that John’s contentious rhetoric be understood as descriptive of and limited to a particular historical and cultural setting.
Chapter 2
Chapter 2: The Shema in Deuteronomy
The Shema in Deuteronomy
2.1 Introduction
2.1 Introduction
The primary focus of this chapter is determining the meaning of the Shema and how it functions within the book of Deuteronomy, with particular attention paid to elements shared by both Deuteronomy and the Fourth Gospel. The broad context of Deut 6:4–9 has two exegetically significant points of contact with John’s Gospel. First, the text is composed of older material that is reworked by an editor (or editors) to present the material as a witness for a new generation. The core of Deuteronomy is generally dated to the seventh century BCE for a variety of reasons, including: (1) its emphasis on the centralization of the cult and the discovery of a book of law in the temple during the reign of Josiah (622 BCE); (2) rhetoric and style; and (3) affinities with the VTE (Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon) in which a sovereign imposes a loyalty oath on his vassal.1 For these reasons, Moshe Weinfeld writes: “Although the book of Deuteronomy is addressed to the generation entering the land of Canaan, the actual audience of the book belongs to the Josianic period.”2 This situation bears remarkable similarities with J. Louis Martyn’s well-known description of the Gospel of John as a two-level drama, or, more accurately for our purposes, a two-level reading
1 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 5; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 1–84; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), 1–9; Weinfeld, “Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy,” Bib 46 (1965): 417–427 passim; cf. Eckart Otto: “In Anknüpfung an Ex 22,19a wird das Hauptgesetz der Kultreinheit (Dtn 13*) als Entfaltung des Alleinverehrungsanspruchs JHWHs in Analogie zum neuassyrischen Loyalitätseid gegenüber dem Großkönig gestaltet. Dem korrespondieren die ebenfalls unter dem Einfluss der neuassyrischen Loyalitätseide dtn gestalteten Flüche (Dtn 28,23–43*) ... Der dtn Redaktor interpretiert also das Reformwerk der Auslegung des BB in Dtn 12–26* als Loyalitätseid gegenüber JHWH,” in Theologische Ethik des Alten Testaments (TW 3; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1994), 180; R. Frankena, “The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy,” in Oudtestamentische Studiën. XIV (ed. Pieter A. H. de Boer; Leiden: Brill, 1965), 122–154; Jeffrey H. Tigay, Deuteronomy: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation (The NJPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1996), xix–xxvi; Herman L. Horowitz, “The Sh'ma Reconsidered,” Judaism 24 (1975): 476–481.
2 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 239; cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 158–178.
Chapter 2: The Shema in Deuteronomy strategy. According to Martyn, the Fourth Evangelist reworks older material so that his Gospel might speak to a new audience facing its own, unique set of circumstances in the late first century.3 Both Deuteronomy and the Fourth Gospel address people whose identity is in transition, in order to articulate what is enduring in their experience and vital to their continuing existence. Both writings confront their contemporary audiences, along with future generations, with the question of whether or not they will participate as part of the people of God. Both writings maintain that heeding the message contained within is a matter of life and death.
A second way in which the broader context of Deuteronomy is analogous to the Gospel of John is in its use of the literary convention of the farewell speech. The bulk of Deuteronomy consists of Mo ses’s farewell address to Israel as the nation prepares to enter the land just before Moses’s death. In the Gospel of John, chapters 13–17 depict Jesus’s farewell address to his disciples prior to his return to his heavenly Father. This formal similarity suggests that the reader might expect to find some formal and conceptual affinities between the two works. Additionally, the significance of the figure of Moses throughout the Fourth Gospel heightens the potential significance of the Shema in John.4
A quick comparison of the vocabulary of Deut 6:4–5 LXX with portions of the Fourth Gospel yields the results in the table on the following page. This is not an exhaustive list of verbal correspondences between Deut 6:4–9 and the Fourth Gospel, but it is introduced at this point to highlight key words and concepts common to both texts: hearing, oneness, and love for God; later, a fourth theme, life, will be added. Chapters 6 and 7 will take up these themes of the Shema in an exegetical analysis of John’s Gospel.
3 One could argue that this two-level reading strategy applies to all the canonical Gospels, all of which include traces of material that post -dates the destruction of the temple. Critiques of Martyn’s work can be found in Chapter 6 (152–154). Furthermore, I will demonstrate in Chapter 4 that several Second Temple writers employ this same strategy.
4 On Moses traditions in the Fourth Gospel, see Wayne A. Meeks, The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the Johannine Christology (NovTSup 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967); cf. T. Francis Glasson, Moses in the Fourth Gospel (London: SCM Press, 1963); M. E. Boismard, Moses or Jesus: An Essay in Johannine Christology (trans. Benedict T. Viviano; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993).
2.2 Moses’s First Speech (Deut 1–4:43) 7
Table 1. Some Vocabulary of the Shema in John’s Gospel
Deut 6:4–5 LXX
Gospel of John (Deut 6:4).
, (John 5:24; cf. 5:25, 28, 37; 6:45; 7:40; 8:43; 8:47; 10:3, 8, 16; 14:24; 18:37).
(John 10:30; cf. 17:11, 21, 22).
(Deut 6:5).
(John 5:42). , (cf. John 14:21, 24; 15:10).
2.2 Moses’s First Speech (Deut 1–4:43)
2.2 Moses’s First Speech (Deut 1–4:43)
Deuteronomy is framed as a series of three speeches which comprise Moses’s farewell address (Deut 1:3–4: 40; 4:44–28:68; 28:69; 30:20).5 In the first speech, Moses recounts the events of the wilderness wanderings leading up to the entrance into and occupation of the land. Four important themes emerge in this oration: (1) hearing or obedience; (2) the uniqueness of YHWH,6 (3) love; and (4) life. All four themes are connected to the injunction to keep the commandments. These key themes, laid out in the first speech, resurface in the second and third speeches and are woven throughout Deuteronomy. These motifs form a kind of covenantal cluster that represents the ideal relationship between God and Israel. These themes will converge with particular clarity and force in the Shema.
The first speech begins with a summary of the events that took place between Horeb and the plains of Moab; the historical experience of the Israelites is the basis for their obligation to serve YHWH (e.g., 4:1, 20, 37–40). This account corresponds to the historical prologue of VTE treaties, which recount the past benefactions of a king to his subjects, often including deliverance from
5 Different commentators divide the speeches somewhat differently. The division cited above makes the best sense of the literary transitions in the text; also Alexander Rofé, “The Book of Deuteronomy: A Summary,” in Deuteronomy: Issues and Interpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 1.
6 The spelling YHWH will be used to represent the Tetragrammaton, usually translated “LORD” in English, to distinguish the name of Israel’s God from the more general terms “gods” or “God,” in Hebrew.
Chapter 2: The Shema in Deuteronomy
enemies. These acts obligated the vassals to the suzerain. Since the discovery of the VTE, there has been a scholarly consensus that the Deuteronomic covenant is patterned on ancient loyalty oaths of vassals to their suzerains.7 These treaties, which spanned two millennia and multiple cultures, contain numerous similarities to the Deuteronomic covenant, such as the command for exclusive loyalty to the suzerain, the command to love the suzerain, the requirement to keep the treaty stipulations and to teach them to one’s children, the invocation of heaven and earth as witnesses, and the blessings and curses for compliance and noncompliance with the terms of the treaty. In Moses’s first speech, the deliverance from Egypt serves as a historical prologue, binding the people into the exclusive service of YHWH.
2.3 Hearing or obedience
2.3 Hearing or obedience
Deuteronomy 4 begins with Moses exhorting the people to hear YHWH’s teaching: “And now, Israel, hear the statutes and ordinances that I am teaching you to do in order that you might live; and go in and possess the land that YHWH, the God of your ancestors is giving to you” (Deut 4:1; translation mine; emphasis added; cf. 4:10, 12, 30, 33, 36).8 Although the words appear here in reverse order from Deut 6:4, the imperative anticipates the solemn call of 6:4. The command confronts the people with divine revelation, with an obligation to hear and obey YHWH’s voice, which is concretized in Israel’s life in the statutes and ordinances of the covenant.
2.4 The Uniqueness of YHWH
2.4 The Uniqueness of YHWH
YHWH alone rescued the nation from Egypt with signs and wonders and gave them his statues and ordinances (4:32–40). These unique events point to a unique God: “To you it was shown so that you would acknowledge that YHWH is God; there is no other besides him” (4:35). The text underscores this point: “there is no other” (4:39), emphasizing YHWH’s singular role in Israel’s life. Weinfeld maintains that the exclusivity of Deut 4:35 and 39 “corresponds ideologically to the Shema proclamation in Deut 6:4.”9
7 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 6–9 and passim; Weinfeld, “The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East,” Ugarit-Forschungen 8 (1976): 379–414; Tigay, Deuteronomy , xiv–xv.
8 All citations of the Hebrew Bible, Deuter o-canonical literature, and the NT are taken from the NRSV except where noted. For the implicit link between hearing and obeying, see BDB, s.v. “ .”
9 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 229.
If YHWH was to be Israel’s only God, then it followed that Israel would be YHWH’s unique people. Israel was to be a singular people, bound to YHWH by YHWH’s nearness (4:7) and by the privilege of being the sole recipients of YHWH’s just teaching, the Torah (4:8). YHWH’s uniqueness was inextricably linked to Israel’s uniqueness as YHWH’s people; the idea that the divine unity creates a unity among God’s people is central to prophetic oracles of restoration and is taken up in John’s Gospel as well. In Deuteronomy, in order to maintain the covenantal relationship, the people are required to hear and obey YHWH’s commandments (4:5–8).
The consequence of idol worship will be exile (4:25–28; cf. 30:17–18), which will endanger Israel’s existence as a people. This section ends with the message that YHWH will take the people back if they return to him (4:29–31).
The two-level reading strategy of Deuteronomy is thinly disguised here; an audience that has already experienced exile is reminded of the hope of restoration if they “hear” and return to YHWH.10
2.5 Love
2.5 Love
YHWH’s love for Israel and Israel’s ancestors is put forth as the basis for Israel’s election: “And because he loved your ancestors, he chose their descendants after them. He brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power” (Deut 4:37; cf. 5:10; 7:7–8; 10:15; 23:5). As mentioned earlier, the recollection of benefits bestowed on the people recalls the historical prologue section of Hittite treaties, which recount the benevolent acts the suzerain has performed on behalf of his vassal. Deut 4:37 serves to ground the command to love YHWH (6:5) in YHWH’s prior love for Israel: the deliverance from Egypt, along with the giving of the law, is put forth as evidence of this love.11
In Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) suzerainty treaties, the benefits of an overlord come with a price: a series of stipulations which govern the lives of the vassals. The promise of protection and other benefits is accompanied by threats of destruction should the vassal disobey the covenant stipulations. In Deuteronomy, YHWH’s stipulations come with curses for disobedience, although the threat is mitigated should Israel have a change of heart and return to YHWH: “From there you will seek YHWH your God, and you will find him if you search for him with all your heart and soul ” (Deut 4:29; emphasis added). Just as the command to hear in Deut 4:1 anticipates Deut 6:4, so also the phrase “with all your heart and soul” attunes the hearer to the commitment of an Israelite’s whole self to YHWH in 6:5.
10 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 216.
11 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School , 69–74.
2.6 Life
2.6 Life
Hearing and obeying the commandments leads to life: “And now, Israel, hear the statutes and ordinances that I am teaching you to do in order that you might live ” (4:1 emphasis added; cf. 4:4; 6:24; 8:1). On the other hand, neglecting the covenant, whether by worshiping idol s or disregarding the commandments, brings death and destruction: “For YHWH your God is a devouring fire, a jealous God” (4:26; cf. 4:3, 24). The choice of life or death is presented in stark terms; life is closely connected with keeping the commandments, while idolatry is linked to death. This theme completes the pattern of hearing/oneness/love/life evinced in Deuteronomy.
2.7 Moses’s Second Speech (Deut 4:44–28:68)
2.7 Mos Second Speech (Deut 4:44–28:68)
Moses’s second speech repeats and amplifies the themes introduced in the first. These motifs are especially concentrated in the Decalogue (Deut 5:1–21) and in the Shema (Deut 6:4–9; cf. 11:13–21). The close relationship between the Decalogue (Deut 5:1–21) and the Shema has been widely recognized.12 The two passages occur in close proximity to one another within Deuteronomy and both came to function as Israelite creeds containing a declaration of the unity of God. According to the Mishnah, the Decalogue and the Shema were read together daily in the temple (m. Tamid 5:1; cf. b. Ber. 12a).13 The Nash Papyrus, dating to the first or second century BCE, contains a Hebrew text of the Decalogue followed by the first verse of the Shema.14 The fact that these two
12 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 340; cf. Eckart Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11: Zweiter Teilband: 4,44–11,32 (HThKAT; Freiburg: Herder, 2012), 790–829; Dale C. Allison, Jr., Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 153–155; Reuven Kimelman, “The Shema Liturgy: From Covenant Ceremony to Coronation,” in Kenishta: Studies of the Synagogue World (ed. Joseph Tabory; RamatGan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2001), 9–105 (68–69); Stefan C. Reif, Problems with Prayers: Studies in the Textual History of Early Rabbinic Liturgy (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2006), 112–114.
13 Paul Foster has recently argued that this statement is a retrojection of later practice into a Second Temple setting in “Why Did Matthew Get the Shema Wrong? A Study of Matthew 22:37,” JBL 122 (2003): 309–333 (326). Some of the prayers mentioned in the Mishnah, however, do not belong to the later rabbinic period, i.e., the Decalogue and the benediction on the outgoing course of priests. See also Kimelman, 13, n. 13; Joel Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27A; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 837; Reif, Problems with Prayers , 118, n. 30.
14 On the history, dating, and text of the Nash Papyrus, see Reif, Problems with Prayers, 115–116; cf. W.F. Albright, “A Biblical Fragment from the Maccabaean Age: The Nash Papyrus,” JBL 56 (1937): 145–176; Marvin A. Sweeney, “The Nash Papyrus: Preview of Coming Attractions,” BAR 36 (2010): 43–48, 77.
2.8 The Four Themes in the Decalogue (Deut 5:1–21) 11
portions of scripture are found upon a single sheet rather than a scroll makes it likely that the papyrus was used for liturgical or didactic purposes.15 Moreover, tefillin and mezuzot found at Qumran include the Decalogue along with the first two paragraphs of the Shema.16 The four themes in both the Decalogue and the Shema will be compared below in order to draw out the literary and theological affinities of both passages. The use of these motifs in the Decalogue, particularly in relation to the first and second commandments, will help to interpret the meaning of Deut 6:4–5.
2.8 The Four Themes in the Decalogue (Deut 5:1–21)
2.8 The Four Themes in the Decalogue (Deut 5:1–21)
2.8.1 Hearing
The prologue to the Decalogue begins with , a summons to hear the divine revelation and obey: “Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances that I am speaking in your ears today; learn them and keep them that you may do them” (Deut 5:1; translation mine; cf. 4:1). The prefatory links the Decalogue verbally and conceptually with Deut 6:4–9; both passages call the people to attention, to hear and obey the command of YHWH mediated through Moses. Deut 5 then reaffirms the covenant with the new generation on the plains of Moab: “Not with our ancestors did YHWH make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today” (Deut 5:3). This first-person gloss attempts to solve the problem created by the death of the Exodus generation in the wilderness; in order to make the Sinaitic covenant binding for the present generation, it is denied to the old generation (cf. 11:2, 7).17 This two-level literary device, which Weinfeld calls a “blurring of generations,”18 is part of a solution to the problem of the continuing validity of the covenant. This phenomenon parallels the two-level narrative in John, where there is a collapsing of time between the generation that witnessed Jesus in the flesh and those in the late first century who did not, but saw themselves as inheritors of the covenant promises. For John, however, the covenant is denied, not to the previous
15 E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 66 BCE – 66 CE (London: SCM Press, 1992), 196.
16 Reif, Problems with Prayers , 116; see also Yigael Yadin, Tefillin from Qumran: XQ Phyl 1–4 (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and the Shrine of the Book, 1969); Yonatan Adler, “The Content and Order of the Scriptural Passages in Tefillin: A Reexamination of the Early Rabbinic Sources in Light of the Evidence from the Judean Desert” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy (JAJSup 3; ed. Albert I. Baumgarten, Hanan Eshel, Ranon Katzoff, and Shani Tzoref; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 205–229.
17 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 237–238.
18 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 238.
Chapter 2: The Shema in Deuteronomy generation, but to anyone past or present who would deny that Jesus is the Messiah.
Another aspect of the solution to the problem of the continuing validity of the covenant is that the Sinai theophany was not understood as a one-time event, but was actualized annually during festival assemblies when the Decalogue was read and the people renewed the covenant by swearing allegiance to YHWH.19
2.8.2 The Uniqueness of YHWH
The first commandment states, “I am YHWH your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me” (Deut 5:6–7).20 Deut 5:6a is a self-presentation formula common to the openings of royal inscriptions in the ancient Near East, and as such, constitutes a motive clause for the injunction against worshiping other gods in 5:7 and as an introduction to the Decalogue as a whole.21 The formula, “I am YHWH your God,” also appears in Deut 5:9, Lev 19:4, and Ps 81:9–11, where it is linked to prohibitions against idolatry. This expression, along with the identification of YHWH as the one who brought Israel out of Egypt, is the basis for recognizing the sovereignty of YHWH alone and for prohibiting the worship of other gods (cf. Deut 6:12–15; Judg 6:8–10; Hos 13:4).
The command against worshipping foreign gods in Deut 5:7 is not unique to this passage (cf. Ex 20:3; 22:20; 23:1 3, 23–24; 34:14; Deut 4:23; Ps 81:10). It stands out prominently here, however, in its immediate connection to the divine self-proclamation and in its position at the head of the Ten Commandments. It is made concrete in the second commandment, which prohibits the making and worship of idols (5:8–10) and it foreshadows Deut 6:4–5. The chief concern does not seem to be a kind of theoretical monotheism which insists
19 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 257–260, 266. In rabbinic thought, each generation receives the revelation afresh and recommits itself to God’s covenant (b. Shab. 146a). In contemporary Judaism, this idea is found in the Torah service: “Taking out the Torah becomes a moment of affirming Israel’s most fundamental creed, as if we are standing before our sovereign, God, and affirming our loyalty,” Ma zor Lev Shalem for Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, 2010), 98. In addition, there is a tradition that requires worshipers to stand during the reading of the Torah portion in which the Ten Commandments are recited as a reenactment of the events at Sinai (based on Ex 20:18; cf. b. Meg. 21a).
20 There is some question as to where the first commandment ends and the second begins (Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 243–245; Tigay, Deuteronomy, 63, 342). Along with Philo (Decal. 50–51), Josephus ( A.J. 3.91–92), and some of the Church Fathers, this study will count Deut 5:6–7, on the unity of God, as the first commandment, and the prohibition against idol worship (Deut 5:8–10) as the second. Deut 5:6–7 is a unit that concisely expresses the unity of God and demands exclusive worship of YHWH.
21 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 285–286.
2.8 The Four Themes in the Decalogue (Deut 5:1–21) 13
that only one God exists. Rather, the point emphasized here and throughout Deuteronomy is the uniqueness of YHWH for Israel: only YHWH has acted on behalf of Israel and only YHWH, therefore, has a claim on Israel. There is a pervasive sense of foreboding throughout Deuteronomy, however, generated by the knowledge that apostasy has already occurred and will occur again (Deut 4:25–31; 7:4; 8:19; 11:16, 28, 13:3, 7, 14; 17:3; 18:20; 28:14, 36, 64; 29:25; cf. 6:14; 7:16). These passages do not merely call for absolute loyalty to Israel’s God; they also serve as an explanation for the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile.
2.8.3 Love
The second commandment characterizes YHWH as a god who is jealous of Israel’s affections and, at the same time, as one who is ever ready to show kindness and mercy to those who love him (Deut 5:8–10; cf. Deut 6:5; 7:9; Ex 20:6; 34:6–7). YHWH’s demand for Israel’s love (“showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments” 5:10; cf. 6:5), is grounded in YHWH’s prior love for Israel: “[Y]et YHWH set his heart in love on your ancestors alone and chose you, their descendants after them, out of all the peoples, as it is today” (Deut 10:15; cf. 4:37; 23:6). There is thus an explicit link between the first commandment, the prohibition against the worship of foreign gods, and the second commandment, the kind of exclusive loyalty that YHWH’s acts on Israel’s behalf should elicit. Chapter 6 will show that Jesus’s allusion to Deut 5:10 (John 14:15, 21) is an important piece of evidence linking Johannine Christology to the Shema’s broader Deuteronomic context.
2.8.4 Life
Following his recitation of the Decalogue (cf. Ex 20:2–17), Moses reminds the people of the solemnity of their confession–only hearing and obeying the one YHWH will lead to life: “You must follow exactly the path that YHWH your God has commanded you, so that you may live, and that it may go well with you, and that you may live long in the land that you are to possess” (Deut 5:33; cf. 6:2). Throughout Deuteronomy, loyalty to the one YHWH leads to life, while the worship of foreign gods leads to death.
Following his recital of the Decalogue in the hearing of all the people, Moses returns to YHWH for more detailed instructions. He then recounts these to the people, beginning with the weighty introduction, “ Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe them [the statues and ordinances] diligently” (6:3; emphasis added).
Chapter 2: The Shema in Deuteronomy
2.9 The Shema: Deut 6:4–9 in its Biblical Context
2.9 The Shema: Deut 6:4–9 in its Biblical Context
The beginning of Deuteronomy 6 serves as a formal introduction to the additional instruction that YHWH gives Moses at Horeb, referred to fourteen times in Deut as 22 Both the LXX and the Nash Papyrus accentuate this point by including a prefatory remark at the beginning of 6:4: (the Nash Papyrus uses instead of ). According to the majority of scholars, in its context in the Nash Papyrus, this statement serves as a liturgical introduction to the Shema.23 This provides support for the idea that the Shema had a liturgical function at an early date. The additional statement also witnesses to the connection between the Shema and the keeping of the commandments.
The singular , found at 6:1 and thirteen other times in Deuteronomy, is a key to this passage.24 It is first put into the mouth of YHWH: “But you, stand here by me, and I will tell you all the commandment ( ), the statutes and the ordinances, that you shall teach them, so that they may do them in the land that I am giving them to possess” (5:31; emphasis added).25 Then Moses begins to expound YHWH’s instruction: “Now this is the commandment ( ) – the statutes and the ordinances – that YHWH your God charged me to teach you” (6:1a). The various statutes and ordinances are set forth beginning in Deut 12, but the singular to which 5:31 and 6:1 immediately point is 6:4–5, the command to hear and love YHWH. The singular is often understood to
22 Deut 4:1, 5, 8, 14, 45; 5:1, 31; 6:1, 20; 7:11; 11:32; 12:1; 26:16, 17.
23 E.g., Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 337; Otto, Deuteronomium, 779; Reif, Problems with Prayers, 115–116; Sweeney, “Nash Papyrus,” 43–48, 77; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (3 rd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 111; cf. E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 196. Melvin K. Peters, however, argues that the statement, also present in Deut 6:4 LXX, may represent an earlier textual tradition than that of the Leningrad codex, in “Translating a Translation: Some Final Reflections on the Production of the New English Translation of Greek Deuteronomy,” in Translation Is Required: The Septuagint in Retrospect and Prospect (SBLSCS 56; ed. Robert J. V. Hiebert; Atlanta: SBL, 2010), 119–134, esp. 124–125. The Nash Papyrus and LXX may have shared a similar Vorlage, as the Hebrew text was still quite fluid at this time. This is readily apparent in the Nash Papyrus, where the text of the Decalogue is sometimes closer to the Exodus version, sometimes closer to the Deuteronomic version, and sometimes varies from both.
24 5:31; 6:25; 7:11; 8:1; 11:8, 22; 15:5; 17:20; 19:9; 26:13; 27:1; 30:11; 31:5.
25 The NRSV reads “commandments,” thus obscuring this point.
2.9 The Shema: Deut 6:4–9 in its Biblical Context 15
refer to the entire law,26 but it will be argued below that it points more specifically to the basic covenantal demand to love and obey YHWH. 27 The singular commandment – the Shema – forms the centerpiece of Mosaic legislation and summarizes the covenantal obligation of the Israelite toward YHWH.28
2.9.1 Hearing:
Hear, O Israel! YHWH our God, YHWH is one; and you shall love YHWH your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you this day shall be upon your heart; and you shall repeat them to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you go on the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up. And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates (Deut 6:4–9; translation mine).
“Hear, O Israel” is the fourth in a series of seven similar commands (4:1; 5:1; 6:3; 6:4; 9:1; 20:3; 27:9), where the imperative to hear appears along with the vocative “Israel.” Elsewhere, Israel is the implied recipient of the command to hear (1:13; 13:4; 27:10; 30:2; 30:10; 30:20). The command to hear may have originally signaled the opening of a tribal worship assembly. 29 It also may have origins in Wisdom literature where, as Weinfeld observes, it frequently appears as a formula that begins a didactic address, as the wise teacher instructs his student to listen obediently (e.g., Prov 1:8; 4:10; Ps 34:12).30 The education of the child in YHWH’s commandments is central to the Shema: “Recite them to your children and talk about them when you are at home and when you are away, when you lie down and when you rise up” (Deut 6:7).
In Deuteronomy, the call to hear precedes divine revelation. S. Dean McBride observes:
So emphasized by the Deuteronomists, hearing is an act of initiation and assent. It defines Israel as a truly transcendent community, forming a link between the nation then and now, between those who initially heard the Mosaic legacy, and those who later receive it. ‘Hear
26 E.g., Georg Braulik, “Die Ausdrücke für ‘Gesetz’ im Buch Deuteronomium,” Bib 51 (1970): 39–66 (53–56).
27 So Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 325; Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, 65–91; cf. Patrick D. Miller, “The Most Important Word: The Yoke of the Kingdom,” Iliff Review 41 (1984): 17–29 (18). For the full discussion, see Chapter 7.
28 In Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus teaches that the entire law hangs upon the Great Commandment (singular) to love God (Deut 6:5) and neighbor (Lev 19:18); see Chapter 5.
29 So Gerhard von Rad, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (OTL; trans. D. Barton; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), 63; cf. Deut 20:3, where it is used in a military sense.
30 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 199; cf. Norbert Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot: Eine Untersuchung literarischer Einleitungsfragen zu Dtn 5–11 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1963), 66.
Chapter 2: The Shema in Deuteronomy
O Israel!’ The opening words of Deuteronomy 6:4 are a summons to those who would be Israel in any age.31
The call to hear anticipates a response on the part of Israel to acknowledge that YHWH is one, to crown YHWH its sovereign, and to accept YHWH’s statutes and ordinances.
In the broad context of Deuteronomy, the object of Israel’s hearing is often the voice of God, which in turn is linked with the commandments, e.g., “Therefore hear the voice of YHWH your God and do his commandments” (Deut 27:10; translation mine; cf. 30:2, 10).32 Other times the ordinances themselves are the object of Israel’s hearing, e.g., “And now, Israel, hear the laws and ordinances that I am teaching you” (Deut 4:1; translation mine; cf. 5:1; 6:3; 11:13). In Deut 6:4, the command to hear points to the divine unity along with imperatives related to the commandments: “and you shall love,” “and you shall teach,” “and you shall speak,” “and you shall bind,” “and you shall write.” As elsewhere in Deuteronomy, the summons to hear in Deut 6:4 is closely connected to obedience to the Mosaic law.
2.9.2 The Uniqueness of God
: Each of these words is relatively easy to identify and define individually: “YHWH, our God, YHWH, one.” As a unit however, their meaning is obscure.33 McBride opines that “no statement in the bible has provoked more discussion with less agreement than this one.”34 What follows is a brief presentation of the four most widely accepted paraphrases of Deut 6:4, with a particular focus on the meaning of . It will not be possible or necessary to solve all of the grammatical and syntactical difficulties of Deut 6:4 in order to arrive at the crux of the meaning of : YHWH’s oneness is his uniqueness and incomparability as Israel’s only King.
1. YHWH is our God, YHWH alone.
2. YHWH is our God, YHWH is one.
3. YHWH our God is one YHWH.
4. YHWH our God, YHWH is one.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these options and there is no scholarly consensus as to which best interprets the Hebrew text. Each will be considered in turn and an option chosen that best takes into account both grammatical and contextual issues.
31 S. Dean McBride, “Yoke of the Kingdom: An Exposition of Deuteronomy 6:4–5,” Int 27 (1973): 273–306 (291).
32 Of the seven instances in Deuteronomy where occurs with the vocative “Israel,” only two are not directly connected with law observance (9:1; 20:3).
33 So also Vladimir Orel, “The Words on the Doorpost,” ZAW 109 (1997): 614–617.
34 McBride, “Yoke,” 291.
2.9 The Shema: Deut 6:4–9 in its Biblical Context 17
1.YHWH is our God, YHWH alone.35 This reading understands Deut 6:4 as a demand for Israel to acknowledge only YHWH as their God. The advantage of this interpretation is that unlike the other options, it renders Deut 6:4 into a clear statement about the necessity of an exclusive commitment to YHWH, rather than a declaration of theoretical monotheism, which would be anachronistic in this setting. Recognition of YHWH alone is consistent with the warnings against worshipping other gods throughout Deuteronomy (e.g., 5:8; 29:16; 32:21).
One problem with this formulation is that the copula seems to belong logically to the second half of the sentence; elsewhere in Deuteronomy, stands in apposition to rather than functioning as its predicate.36 Another difficulty with this translation is that Hebrew characteristically uses or to mean “alone” (e.g., Deut 4:35; 32:12).37 As J. Gerald Janzen observes, “The degree of indirectness of this construal [YHWH is our God, YHWH alone] is indicated by the fact that other instances of meaning ‘alone’ have yet to be adduced in the Hebrew Bible.”38 On the other hand, Walter Moberly acknowledges that even though “YHWH alone” may not make the best sense of the Hebrew syntax, this translation is more obviously in keeping with the central concerns of Deuteronomic covenant theology than is a statement about the oneness of Yahweh whose precise sense is not immediately apparent and which is all too easily interpreted in the light of the monotheistic concerns of later periods. The obviously appropriate sense of ‘YHWH alone’ is recognized even by those who do not think it is the correct rendering. 39 Translating as “alone” makes sense of Deut 6:4 in context, but it glosses over the unusual use of in 6:4, which calls for further explanation.
35 NJPS; NRSV; McBride, “Yoke,” 293; Tigay, Deuteronomy , 76, cf. 440; Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11 , 777; 795–96; Jon D. Levenson, Sinai & Zion: An Entry into the Jewish Bible (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987), 82; Andrew D. H. Mayes, Deuteronomy (Greenwood, SC: The Attic Press, 1979), 176; Michael Wyschogrod, “The One God of Abraham and the Unity of the God of Jewish Philosophy,” in Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations (ed. R. Kendall Soulen; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 29–42 (35).
36 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 337; so also Moberly, “‘Yahweh is One,’” 213; Lohfink and Bergman, TDOT 1:194–195; Tigay, Deuteronomy , 439.
37 Tigay, Deuteronomy , 439; cf. Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ (FAT 2/1; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 69–70; but see Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 337–338, who, with A. B. Ehrlich, argues that is an adverb and would be inappropriate in the context of Deut 6:4.
38 J. Gerald Janzen, “On the Most Important Word in the Shema (Deuteronomy VI 4–5),” VT 37 (1987): 280–300 (284). Bord and Hamidovi point out that only Zech 14:9, which may be a later commentary on Deut 6:4, uses to mean “alone,” in Lucien-Jean Bord and David Hamidovi , “Écoute Israel (Deut. VI 4),” VT 52 (2002): 13–29 (16).
39 Moberly, “Yahweh is One,” 211.
2. YHWH is our God, YHWH is one. Although Waltke and O’Connor view this as “this simplest solution,”40 very few scholars have adopted this translation.41 Like the previous option, it includes the problematic copula in 6:4a. The advantages of the interpretation “YHWH is one” are also available in the fourth option, without the difficulties of “YHWH is our God.”
3. YHWH our God is one YHWH. 42 The translation “YHWH our God is one YHWH” is usually interpreted as a slogan of the Deuteronomic movement that rallied against the worship of multiple manifestations of YHWH at multiple sanctuaries. In support of this idea, inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud in the eighth and ninth centuries BCE attest to manifestations such as “YHWH of Samaria” and “YHWH of Teman.”43 Read in light of these inscriptions, Deut 6:4 is a polemic against the proliferation of YHWH deities, declaring instead that there is a single YHWH who is to be worshiped at a single sanctuary.
The problem with this option, as Jeffrey H. Tigay argues, is that there is no evidence within Deuteronomy that the multiplication of YHWH into various local deities is a serious concern.44 Weinfeld concurs that in Deuteronomy “this phenomenon is never brought up as an argument in the issue of unification of worship, and the fragmentation of YHWH into numerous deities is never explicitly recognized as a problem.”45
4. YHWH our God, YHWH is one.46 There are two advantages to this interpretation: first, “YHWH is one” places the copula where it properly be-
40 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 135.
41 Janzen, “Most Important Word,” 290; Timo Veijola, “Höre Israel! Der Sinn und Hintergrund von Deuteronomium VI 4–9,” VT 42 (1992): 528–541 (530–32).
42 ASV; RSV; KJV; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 337; von Rad; Deuteronomy , 63; Peter C. Craigie, The Book of Deuteronomy (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 168–169.
43 P. Kyle McCarter, “The Religious Reforms of Hezekiah and Josiah,” in Aspects of Monotheism: How God is One (ed. Hershel Shanks and Jack MeDinhardt; Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1997), 57–80 (62–67); cf. Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11 , 798–799.
44 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 439; so also Miller, “The Most Important Word,” 22; Bord and Hamidovi , “Écoute Israel,” 20–21; McBride, “Yoke,” 295; Lohfink and Bergman, TDOT 1:197.
45 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 350.
46 ESV; NAS; NIV; NKJV; NEB; Robert Alter, The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2004), 912; C. H. Gordon, “His Name is One,” JNES 29 (1970): 198–199; J. G. McConville, Deuteronomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002), 137, 141. R. W. L. Moberly initially advocated this translation in “‘Yahweh is One’: The Translation of the Shema,” in Studies in the Pentateuch (VTSup; ed. John A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1990), 209–215 (215). He has since revised his view, preferring to paraphrase: “YHWH is the one and only,” in “Toward an Interpretation of the Shema” in
2.9 The Shema: Deut 6:4–9 in its Biblical Context 19 longs. Second, and more significant, the expression “YHWH is one” allows the text to retain the ancient vocabulary of divine kingship. In Ancient Near Eastern inscriptions and literature, the language of oneness was used of both kings and gods to connote aloneness, uniqueness, and incomparability.47 In a Ugaritic inscription, for example, Baal states “I am one [Ugaritic: akhdy] who rules over the gods.” 48 In Egypt, a god could be called “The One, The Only,” and his role in creation was emphasized.49 In Akkadian, the word “one” was applied both to gods and to kings to mean “unique” or “outstanding.”50 To proclaim a god or king to be “one” could imply a sense of supremacy over a divine retinue or that a god’s rule was in competition with another god’s.51
In Deut 6:4, the proclamation of YHW H’s oneness is best understood within the context of YHWH’s kingship: reflecting the language of ANE kingship, proclaims YHWH the supreme Ruler to whom Israel owes its existence and therefore its wholehearted loyalty. The translation “YHWH is one” is appropriate both within its ANE background and within the immediate context of Deut 6:4, as well as the broader Deuteronomic context, where YHWH assumes the role of divine suzerain. On the surface, “YHWH is one” may seem to lack the connotations of aloneness, uniqueness, and incomparability cited above. But for the purposes of this study, it will be helpful to retain the more literal reading “YHWH is one” with the understanding that it is an ancient and superlative way of expressing YHWH’s uniqueness that has royal connotations. Some have argued against the reading “YHWH our God, YHWH is one” because it renders the second “YHWH” superfluous; the phrase could be put more simply: “YHWH our God is one.”52 This argument ignores the possibility that the author is doubling YHWH for emphasis, or using Hebrew parallelism to similar effect.53 A second point against “YHWH is one” is that to the modern
Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (ed. Christopher Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 124–144 (132–133).
47 For numerous examples of this phenomenon in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Egyptian texts, see Norbert Lohfink and Jan Bergman, “ech dh ,” TDOT 1:194–195; cf. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11, 338, 350–51; Weinfeld, “Loyalty Oath,” 409, n. 266; Mark S. Smith, God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 144.
48 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 350–351.
49 Lohfink and Bergman, “ ech dh,” TDOT 1:194–195.
50 Mark S. Smith, God in Translation , 145.
51 Lohfink and Bergman, TDOT 1:196.
52 Tigay, Deuteronomy, 439; Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 337.
53 So Judah Kraut, “Deciphering the Shema: Staircase Parallelism and the Syntax of Deuteronomy 6:4,” VT 61 (2011): 582–602. Alternatively, Nathan MacDonald ( Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ ) argues that “YHWH our God” functions as a casus pendens (66, 70).
Chapter 2: The Shema in Deuteronomy
ear, it sounds like a monotheistic confession. The Encyclopedia Judaica entry on the Shema reflects the common assumption that “YHWH is one” is about monotheism:
The original meaning of the first verse [of the Shema] may have been that, unlike the pagan gods who have different guises and localities, God is one. At first the main emphasis in the Shema was seen to be in opposition to polytheism; there is only one God, not many gods. 54
While an earlier generation of scholars tended to view monotheism as a feature of ancient Israelite worship, more recent scholarship dates the emergence of monotheism to the exilic and post-exilic periods.55 Eckart Otto remarks:
Die Aussageintention des Sch ema’ Israel wandelt sich zwischen dem 7. und 4. Jahrhundert von einem monojahwistischen zu einem monolatrischen und schließlich monotheistischen Bekenntnis, was Ausdruck des tiefgreifenden Wandels der Theologie des Buches Deuteronomium auf dem Weg von der Neuassyrischen über die spätbabylonische bis zur spätpersischen Zeit ist.56
Similarly, Tigay observes:
The present translation [“the Lord alone”] indicates that the verse is a description of the proper relationship between YHWH and Israel: He alone is Israel’s God. This is not a declaration of monotheism, meaning that there is only one God. 57
54 Louis Jacobs, “Shema, Reading of,” EncJud 18:455.
55 The development of monotheism in ancient Israel has a complicated history and is the subject of a number of important works. Mark S. Smith summarizes the development of monotheism within Israelite religion and reviews secondary literature on the subject in The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 182–199; cf. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), esp. 149–166. For a recent study on the Enlightenment origins of the term “monotheism” and the relevance of the term for the study of the OT, see MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’ , 1–57; cf. MacDonald, “The Origins of ‘Monotheism’,” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism (JSNTSupp 263; ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E. S. North; London: T&T Clark, 2004), 204–215. In the same volume, see also R. W. L. Moberly’s “How Appropriate is ‘Monotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?” (216–234, esp. 227–231 on the Shema). Michael Wyschogrod traces the notion of theoretical monotheism back to medieval Jewish philosophy, where it was mediated through the Greek metaphysical tradition of Parmenides in “The One God of Abraham,” in Abraham’s Promise: Judaism and Jewish-Christian Relations (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 29–42.
56 Otto, Deuteronomium 1–11 , 801.
57 Tigay, Deuteronomy , 76, cf. “Excursus 10: The Shema (6:4),” 438–441; von Rad, “Deuteronomy,” 63. So also Lohfink and Bergman: “The idea that 6:4 can be interpreted in the sense of a theoretical monotheism is out of the question. Deuteronomy does not even consider the existence of other gods until in late strata in the book (e.g., 4:10),” 1:197. Janzen, “The Most Important Word,” 287, Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 351, Moberly, “Toward an Interpretation of the Shema,” 132, and MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism, 74–75, understand as a relational term, rather than as a reference to numerical oneness.
Many scholars, along with Otto and Ti gay, have preferred the translation “YHWH is our God, YHWH alone” in order to circumvent the confusion surrounding the word and its post-Enlightenment, monotheistic connotations. But while “YHWH alone” may succeed in avoiding misleading monotheistic overtones, it loses the rich connotations of kingship and incomparability intrinsic to “YHWH is one.”
Weinfeld points out that the demand for exclusive loyalty to YHWH, along with the concept of the kingdom of God, made it both possible and desirable for Israel to pattern its relations with YHWH after the model of diplomatic relations found in ancient political treaties: “The pattern of a state treaty based on the demand for exclusive allegiance is well suited to a book in which the concept of the unity of God reaches the apogee of expression.”58 The language of “bearing the yoke” in ANE literature refers to fulfilling one’s duty by taking an oath of loyalty to the king or the deity.59 So, too, the Tannaitic rabbis understood reciting the Shema as “accepting the yoke of the kingdom of heaven,” a pledge of wholehearted loyalty to God as King (m. Ber. 2:2; 5).60
In summary, in its Deuteronomic context, Deut 6:4 is not a monotheistic assertion that denies the existence of other gods. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that although there may be rival claimants for Israel’s allegiance, YHWH is the King of Israel, unique, incomparable, the one and only. Although the word is never again predicated of YHWH in Deuteronomy, this interpretation fits the context of the imminent crossing of the Jordan: the question at that moment is not how many gods exist but whether or not the people will remain loyal to YHWH or be seduced by the gods of the land they are about to enter.61 This was also the question posed by the Deuteronomic author to the later Israelites in exile.
Apart from its appearance in Zech 14:9, the phrase “YHWH is one” is conspicuously absent from the rest of the Hebrew bible. It is all the more striking, then, when the expression appears in Hellenistic Jewish literature and in the New Testament. is a catchphrase that captivated the imagination of a number of Jewish writers during the Second Temple period, pointing readers back to the ancient covenant with YHWH. These words continue to be understood and used to express, explain, and argue for YHWH’s supremacy over the gods of other peoples and for adherence to the Mosaic law. These words took on new shades of meaning as Jews found themselves in new historical situations and faced new challenges to their faith and identity.
58 Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School , 83.
59 Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1–11 , 352–353.
60 Reif, Problems with Prayers, 118.
61 So also Daniel I. Block, “How Many is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4–5,” JETS 47 (2004): 193–212 (208).
